BACKGROUND: A small amount of evidence suggests that nasal sprays, or physical activity and stress management, could shorten the duration of respiratory infections. This study aimed to assess the effect of nasal sprays or a behavioural intervention promoting physical activity and stress management on respiratory illnesses, compared with usual care.
METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was done at 332 general practitioner practices in the UK. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) had at least one comorbidity or risk factor increasing their risk of adverse outcomes due to respiratory illness (eg, immune compromise due to serious illness or medication; heart disease; asthma or lung disease; diabetes; mild hepatic impairment; stroke or severe neurological problem; obesity [BMI ≥30 kg/m2]; or age ≥65 years) or at least three self-reported respiratory tract infections in a normal year (ie, any year before the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computerised system to: usual care (brief advice about managing illness); gel-based spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); saline spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); or a brief behavioural intervention in which participants were given access to a website promoting physical activity and stress management. The study was partially masked: neither investigators nor medical staff were aware of treatment allocation, and investigators who did the statistical analysis were unaware of treatment allocation. The sprays were relabelled to maintain participant masking. Outcomes were assessed using data from participants\' completed monthly surveys and a survey at 6 months. The primary outcome was total number of days of illness due to self-reported respiratory tract illnesses (coughs, colds, sore throat, sinus or ear infections, influenza, or COVID-19) in the previous 6 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had primary outcome data available. Key secondary outcomes were possible harms, including headache or facial pain, and antibiotic use, assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, 17936080, and is closed to recruitment.
RESULTS: Between Dec 12, 2020, and April 7, 2023, of 19 475 individuals screened for eligibility, 13 799 participants were randomly assigned to usual care (n=3451), gel-based nasal spray (n=3448), saline nasal spray (n=3450), or the digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management (n=3450). 11 612 participants had complete data for the primary outcome and were included in the primary outcome analysis (usual care group, n=2983; gel-based spray group, n=2935; saline spray group, n=2967; behavioural website group, n=2727). Compared with participants in the usual care group, who had a mean of 8·2 (SD 16·1) days of illness, the number of days of illness was significantly lower in the gel-based spray group (mean 6·5 days [SD 12·8]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·82 [99% CI 0·76-0·90]; p<0·0001) and the saline spray group (6·4 days [12·4]; 0·81 [0·74-0·88]; p<0·0001), but not in the group allocated to the behavioural website (7·4 days [14·7]; 0·97 [0·89-1·06]; p=0·46). The most common adverse event was headache or sinus pain in the gel-based group: 123 (4·8%) of 2556 participants in the usual care group; 199 (7·8%) of 2498 participants in the gel-based group (risk ratio 1·61 [95% CI 1·30-1·99]; p<0·0001); 101 (4·5%) of 2377 participants in the saline group (0·81 [0·63-1·05]; p=0·11); and 101 (4·5%) of 2091 participants in the behavioural intervention group (0·95 [0·74-1·22]; p=0·69). Compared with usual care, antibiotic use was lower for all interventions: IRR 0·65 (95% CI 0·50-0·84; p=0·001) for the gel-based spray group; 0·69 (0·45-0·88; p=0·003) for the saline spray group; and 0·74 (0·57-0·94; p=0·02) for the behavioural website group.
CONCLUSIONS: Advice to use either nasal spray reduced illness duration and both sprays and the behavioural website reduced antibiotic use. Future research should aim to address the impact of the widespread implementation of these simple interventions.
BACKGROUND: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this phase III randomized double-blinded controlled trial was to investigate the efficacy of a rose geranium in sesame oil (RG) nasal spray compared with an isotonic saline (IS) nasal spray for alleviating nasal vestibulitis symptoms among patients undergoing chemotherapy.
METHODS: Patients undergoing active chemotherapy who reported associated nasal symptoms were randomized 1:1 to receive RG or IS, administered twice daily for 2 weeks. Consenting participants completed nasal symptom questionnaires at baseline and then weekly while on treatment. The proportion of patients experiencing improvements in their nasal symptoms 2 weeks after initiating the nasal spray, using a six-point global impression of change score, was estimated within and between each randomized arm, and compared between arms, using Fisher\'s exact test. The estimated odds ratio was determined (95% confidence interval).
RESULTS: One hundred and six patients consented to this study; 43 participants in the RG arm and 41 in the IS arm were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Participants had a mean age of 57.8 years (SD 13.9). Demographic characteristics and baseline nasal symptoms were similar between arms. Of the evaluable participants who received RG, 67.4% reported improved nasal symptoms, compared with 36.6% of the participants who received IS (P = 0.009). Adverse events were sparse and did not differ between arms.
CONCLUSIONS: Rose geranium in sesame oil significantly improves nasal vestibulitis symptoms among patients undergoing chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND: NCT04620369.

BACKGROUND: Preschoolers frequently have respiratory infections (RIs), which may cause wheezing in some subjects. Type 2 polarization may favor increased susceptibility to RIs and associated wheezing. Non-pharmacological remedies are garnering increasing interest as possible add-on therapies. The present preliminary study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new multi-component nasal spray in preschoolers with frequent RIs and associated wheezing.
METHODS: Some preschoolers with these characteristics randomly took this product, containing lactoferrin, dipotassium glycyrrhizinate, carboxymethyl-beta-glucan, and vitamins C and D3 (Saflovir), two sprays per nostril twice daily for 3 months. Other children were randomly treated only with standard therapy. Outcomes included the number of RIs and wheezing episodes, use of medications, and severity of clinical manifestations.
RESULTS: Preschoolers treated add-on with this multicomponent product experienced fewer RIs and used fewer beta-2 agonists than untreated children (P = 0.01 and 0.029, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrated that a multicomponent product, administered add-on as a nasal spray, could reduce the incidence of RIs and use of symptomatic drugs for relieving wheezing in children.

BACKGROUND: Nasal congestion could affect the absorption of an epinephrine nasal spray (ENS).
OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetics of 13.2 mg ENS with nasal congestion vs without congestion and vs intramuscular (IM) treatments.
METHODS: This phase I, open-label, 4-period randomized crossover study enrolled 51 healthy adults with seasonal allergies into cohorts that received a single dose of 13.2 mg ENS (NDS1C; Bryn Pharma, Lebanon, New Jersey) administered as 2 consecutive sprays in either opposite nostrils (cohort 1) or the same nostril (cohort 2). Both cohorts received 13.2 mg ENS with and without nasal allergen challenge (NAC), 0.3 mg IM epinephrine by autoinjector, and 0.5 mg IM epinephrine by manual syringe (MS).
RESULTS: The ENS after NAC resulted in higher extent and peak exposures and more rapid time to maximum plasma concentration vs ENS without NAC and IM treatments. In cohort 1, the maximum observed baseline-adjusted epinephrine plasma concentration (pg/mL) of ENS with NAC, IM autoinjector, IM MS, or ENS without NAC was 458.0, 279.0, 364.2, and 270.1, respectively, and in cohort 2 was 436.3, 228.2, 322.3, and 250.8, respectively. The maximum observed baseline-adjusted epinephrine plasma concentration geometric mean ratio (90% CI) for ENS with NAC vs without NAC in cohort 1 was 170% (123%-234%), and in cohort 2 was 174% (115%-263%). In cohort 1, the time to maximum plasma concentration was 15, 21, 45, and 25 minutes, respectively, and in cohort 2 was 18, 20, 45, and 20 minutes, respectively (P < .01 for ENS with NAC vs IM MS). The postdose mean heart rate and blood pressure remained stable and relatively similar to predose values regardless of plasma epinephrine concentration. Mild nausea and headache were the most common adverse events with ENS.
CONCLUSIONS: The 13.2 mg ENS with congestion exhibited enhanced absorption vs IM treatments and ENS without congestion and seemed to be well tolerated. There was no clinically impactful relationship between pharmacodynamic effects and plasma epinephrine concentration.

While treatment side effects may adversely impact patients, they could also potentially function as indicators for effective treatment. In this study, we investigated whether and how side effects can trigger positive treatment expectations and enhance treatment outcomes. In this pre-registered trial (DRKS00026648), 77 healthy participants were made to believe that they will receive fentanyl nasal sprays before receiving thermal pain in a controlled experimental setting. However, nasal sprays did not contain fentanyl, rather they either contained capsaicin to induce a side effect (mild burning sensation) or saline (inert). After the first session, participants were randomized to two groups and underwent functional MRI. One group continued to believe that the nasal sprays could contain fentanyl while the other group was explicitly informed that no fentanyl was included. This allowed for the independent manipulation of the side effects and the expectation of pain relief. Our results revealed that nasal sprays with a side effect lead to lower pain than inert nasal sprays without side effects. The influence of side effects on pain was dependent on individual beliefs about how side effects are related to treatment outcome, as well as on expectations about received treatment. Functional MRI data indicated an involvement of the descending pain modulatory system including the anterior cingulate cortex and the periaqueductal gray during pain after experiencing a nasal spray with side effects. In summary, our data show that mild side effects can serve as a signal for effective treatment thereby influencing treatment expectations and outcomes, which is mediated by the descending pain modulatory system. Using these mechanisms in clinical practice could provide an efficient way to optimize treatment outcome. In addition, our results indicate an important confound in clinical trials, where a treatment (with potential side effects) is compared to placebo.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about rhinitis control in real-life, nor about the contribution of treatment-related and patient-related factors.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the level of rhinitis control and rhinitis medication utilization in patients with persistent rhinitis and to identify predictors of rhinitis control.
METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in patients with persistent rhinitis recruited in community pharmacies. Participants completed the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test, a questionnaire on patient/rhinitis characteristics, and rhinitis medication use. A visual analog scale for nasal symptoms was also completed. Pharmacy dispensing data were used to calculate adherence to intranasal glucocorticoids. Nasal spray technique was evaluated using a standardized checklist. Predictors of rhinitis control were explored using a linear regression model.
RESULTS: A total of 1,514 patients, recruited in 215 pharmacies, participated in the study (mean age 48.7 y, 62% female). Almost 60% exhibited suboptimal rhinitis control (Rhinitis Control Assessment Test ≤ 21 of 30). A 50-mm cut-off on the visual analog scale yielded 78.1% sensitivity to identify suboptimal rhinitis control. Participants most frequently used intranasal glucocorticoids (55.6%) and intranasal decongestants (47.4%). Only 10.3% of current nasal spray users demonstrated perfect technique. More than half (54.8%) of glucocorticoid users were identified as underadherent. Female sex, self-reported nasal hyperreactivity, active asthma, and use of oral/intranasal decongestants or nasal saline were identified as predictors of worse rhinitis control.
CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal rhinitis control was common in this real-life sample of persistent rhinitis patients. Improving use of rhinitis medication may be key to increase disease control.

OBJECTIVE: Our previous 3-period crossover study in healthy volunteers comparing the pharmacokinetics of nalbuphine nasal spray Apain with parenteral nalbuphine solution demonstrated high bioavailability of the nasal spray and close similarity of pharmacokinetic profiles after intranasal and intramuscular administration, especially within 30 min postdose. The aim of the present study was a noninferiority assessment of nalbuphine nasal spray vs. intramuscular injection for pain relief in postoperative patients.
METHODS: Ninety orthopaedic and traumatology patients were enrolled in this double-blind, randomized study of the effectiveness and tolerance of a single 10.5 mg dose of nalbuphine nasal spray vs. 10 mg intramuscular injection. The summed pain intensity difference (SPID0-6) calculated using visual analogue scale scores was the primary study endpoint.
RESULTS: Of 90 subjects enrolled, the per-protocol efficacy population comprised 79 patients; 6 patients in the reference group and 5 patients in the test group were excluded due to remedication. The mean values of study endpoints with 95% confidence interval were as follows in reference and test groups, respectively: SPID0-6 = 228.08 (205.73-250.43) vs. 248.73 9 (225.83-271.63), time to pain relief onset = 0.28 h (0.25-0.31) vs. 0.27 h (0.25-0.29), duration of analgesia = 5.55 h (5.17-5.93) vs. 5.51 h (5.10-5.92), area under the curve = 119.30 (91.17-147.43) vs. 99.81 (74.52-107.10). No statistically significant differences were revealed.
CONCLUSIONS: Nalbuphine nasal spray Apain has been proven to be a safe, noninvasive alternative to intramuscular nalbuphine to relieve severe postoperative pain. Designed for self-administration and dose-adjusting, the noncontrolled opioid analgesic nalbuphine spray can be used for patient-controlled analgesia in out-of-hospital, field and home settings.

UNASSIGNED: Nasal sprays are widely used in treating nasal and sinus diseases; however, there are very few studies on the drug delivery efficiency of nasal sprays. In this study, the drug delivery efficiency of three different nasal spray devices was evaluated in vitro using a 3D printed cast model of nasal cavity.
UNASSIGNED: Three nasal spray devices with different nozzles and angles of administration were used in the 3D model of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. The spraying area (SA), maximal spraying distance (MSD), and spraying distribution scores on the nasal septum and lateral nasal wall were recorded.
UNASSIGNED: Different nasal spray devices have their own characteristics, including volume of each spray, SA, and plume angle. The SA of the three nozzles on the nasal septum increased with an increasing angle of administration. When the angle of administration was 50°, each nozzle reached the maximal SA. There was no statistically significant difference in MSD among the three nozzles at the three angles. The total scores for each nozzle using the three different spraying angles were as follows: nozzle A, 40° > 30° > 50°; nozzle B, 30° > 40° > 50°; and nozzle C, 30° > 40° > 50°. The total scores for different nozzles using the same angle were statistically significantly different and the scores for nozzle C were the highest. Nozzle C had the minimum plume angle. None of the three nozzles could effectively delivered drugs into the middle meatus at any angle in this model.
UNASSIGNED: The design of the nozzle affects drug delivery efficiency of nasal spray devices. The ideal angle of administration is 50°. The nozzle with smaller plume angle has higher drug delivery efficiency. Current nasal spray devices can easily deliver drugs to most areas of the nasal cavity, such as the turbinate, nasal septum, olfactory fissure, and nasopharynx, but not the middle meatus. These findings are meaningful for nozzle selection and device improvements.

OBJECTIVE: PA9159 (previously named VSG159) is a structurally novel and highly potent glucocorticoid that plays a role in the late development of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. The current first-in-human ascending-dose study of the PA9159 nasal spray was conducted in healthy Chinese volunteers to evaluate its pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability. In addition, the effects of PA9159 on serum cortisol secretion were investigated.
METHODS: This was a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study that included four single-dose groups in the single ascending dose cohort (SAD) and two multiple-dose groups in the multiple ascending dose cohort (MAD), with dose ranges of 10-80 μg and 20-40 μg, respectively. PA9159 was administered bilaterally via nasal spray once only or once daily for seven days. Pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability profiles were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 60 participants completed the study. PA9159 doses of up to 80 μg in the SAD and up to 40 μg in the MAD were shown to be safe and tolerable. The most common treatment-related AEs were mild and transient local nasal AEs. Morning serum cortisol levels approximately remained unchanged in both the single-dose and multiple-dose groups. PA9159 was quantified in 41.8 % (368/880) of the samples in all treatment groups, including 25.2 % (105/416) of the SAD and 56.7 % (263/464) of the MAD. The majority (>80.0 %) of PA9159 plasma concentrations ranged from 0.5 to 2 pg/mL in determined samples. The mean AUC0-t of PA9159 in the SAD was 0.91, 1.39±0.68, 11.40±9.91, and 46.30±25.80 h*pg/mL in the 10 to 80 ug single group. The mean terminal half-life time (t1/2) was 8.43 h and 8.97±2.28 h in 40 ug and 80 ug single group, respectively. The mean AUCss of PA9159 in the MAD was 31.70±7.04, 44.20±20.60 h*pg /mL, and the t1/2 was 16.00±4.18 h, 21.20±10.20 h in the 20 ug and 40 ug multiple groups, respectively. The median Tmax was approximately 6 h in both the SAD and MAD cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: The PA9159 nasal spray was generally safe and well tolerated, and the effects of PA9159 on serum cortisol levels were limited. The plasma concentration and systemic exposure to PA9159 were very low. These findings support the necessity for further clinical studies on PA9159 nasal spray in patients suffering from allergic rhinitis.

Saline nasal sprays are frequently used in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) for the cleansing and clearing of aeroallergens from the nasal cavity. Also using a drug-free approach, AM-301 nasal spray is forming a thin film barrier on the nasal mucosa to prevent contact with allergens, trap them, and facilitate their discharge. A clinical trial compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AM-301 and saline spray in SAR.
A total of 100 patients were randomized 1:1 to self-administer AM-301 or saline 3 × daily for 2 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint: reduction in mean daily reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy endpoints: reduction in mean instantaneous TNSS and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), global impression of efficacy. Safety and tolerability: adverse events, relief medication use, symptom-free days, global impression of tolerability.
AM-301-treated patients achieved a significantly lower rTNSS than the saline group (LS square means difference -1.1, 95% CI -1.959 to -0.241, p = .013) with improvement observed across all individual nasal symptoms. Likewise, all secondary endpoints showed statistical significance in favor of AM-301; for example, quality of life was significantly improved overall (p < .001) as well as for each individual RQLQ domain. Both treatments showed similarly good safety and tolerability. With AM-301, fewer patients used relief medication and more enjoyed symptom-free days compared to saline treatment.
AM-301 was more effective than saline in improving SAR nasal symptoms and related quality of life while offering similar tolerability, demonstrating the benefits of a barrier approach.